Talk:Starship classification
PNA-cite In explaining the background section, there should be some sort of citation to explain to the reader when specific examples were given, as in which episode the Galaxy class was called an explorer, or heavy cruiser, or battlecruiser. For now this sounds more like personal speculation than supported facts. --Alan del Beccio 05:46, 12 Nov 2005 (UTC) :From what I can see, there isn't any on-screen facts to support any of it except for the case of the Constitution and eveb then, only from Star Trek 3 where they call it a battle cruiser. Most of these are unofficial, as with the exception of the one movie, the only sources I know of which can vouch for their status are all non-canon, like games. Heck, the only recollection I can remember right now if that only the games give them designations, and they often disagree with each other unless the games in question are from a series made by one company, like Star_Trek:_Starfleet_Command made by Taldren games and Activision. Because of this, it may as well be speculation. And it isn't really background. They are notes. The last person to edit the page changed the section header to say "background", not to mention reversing the order of the list. I don't know why, but I intended it to list the types from the smallest and weakest to the largest and most powerful. Since there isn't an on-screen reference to go by, it was the best I can do and some of it is my own personal opinion based on the design, size, and power. For example, Starfleet's exploratory mission near and beyond the borders of their space required ships to be capable of long-duration operations with few if any supply depots. It also required them to have the best defensive systems possible. These ships were dubbed as "explorers" at the most basic level and included the Constitution, Excelsior, Constellation, Ambassador, and even the Galaxy considering what it was designed to do. :Feedback is good and should help improve the article. Though I beleive the notes ahould stay, in some form, so the reader will know that the lines are blurred in some places where it comes to trying to assign a ship to a design type. Information from video games is not canon. In fact, any information on the adjacent page that was not mentioned on screen (or other canon source) should be removed. --Alan del Beccio 20:16, 12 Nov 2005 (UTC) :Like I said. They are notes. The statements point out some confusions in general about classes and where they go. Although I do feel somewhat irked in that this wiki restricts to "canon" despite the many errors the show producers themselves made. If non-canon things don't belong, then the article on Caitians would be a canidate for deletion because Paramount had stated that they never were and never will be canon despite the intentions of the costume department for trying to make a canonical appearance fo said race. They may have intended those people to be caitians, but Paramount's statements are pretty much a law on canon in that issue. But whatever happens, let it happen. Forum:Starfleet Vessel Classifications As Starfleet DOES use the Terms Heavy Cruiser, Medium Cruiser and Light Cruiser, they are canon. The Akira Class is a Heavy Cruiser, after all, how on Qo'noS could an Akira ever pass a a Ship of Exploration! :How do you know it isn't a "tactical cruiser" or a "heavy frigate" ? -- we aren't going to list it as a heavy cruiser because no one ever specified its type onscreen (also, no one ever specified its armaments on screen -- so it might very well be a light cruiser or scout -- please remember Memory Alpha is a canon resource -- MA isn't concerned with armament data derived from fan websites! -- Captain Mike K. Barteltalk 14:22, 13 Oct 2005 (UTC) ::The designer of the Akira Class states that it holds fifteen torpedo launchers and two massive launch bays. So yes, she is a torpedo/tactical/heavy cruiser. :::I've never heard the term 'Medium Cruiser' in Trek, only 'Heavy' and 'Light'. Either I've forgotten something, or 'Medium Cruiser' is something taken from the Tech Manuals. - Mada101 18:20, 14 August 2007 (UTC) Escape pod = starship? I think the name of the article is not correct. You have in "Starship classifications" a subcategory "primary ships" and "support ships" which indicates that "support ships" are in fact starships. But that is incorrect, since shuttles and escape pods are per definition no starships at all. Nog states in something like "Ive heared that cadets get to command a shuttlecraft or runabout, but not a starship." That indicates, that shuttles and runabouts (and similar vessels) are not starships. But science vessels for example like the are. I dont know if that was ever stated on-screen, but they are commanded by a Starfleet captain, a strong indicator for a starship. You/we should think about another name for the article like "space vessel classification" with the subcategories "starships" and "auxiliary craft". --Maxwell Fawkes 21:54, 26 December 2008 (UTC) : Not to run you all over the place, but now your question can be directed to talk:Starship#Starship vs. Space space vs. Shuttle or Talk:Constitution class#Starship=Connie, both where definitions have been applied based on use of terminology or "real" definitions. In the latter reference, there are several like what you listed above... --Alan 22:01, 26 December 2008 (UTC) :: OK the heading is a little bit misleading [I changed it from "what is a starship really?" to "Escape pod = starship?"] . However, I think even though we dont know exactly what a starship is, we can all agree (hopefully) that an escape pod is not a starship. And a shuttle too. That means that the name "starship classification" is incorrect. --Maxwell Fawkes 22:57, 26 December 2008 (UTC)